E 74 

mm 




estertt liesetw 



HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 




Number Forty-Four — April, 1879. 



THE GRAVE CREEK INSCRIBED STONE. 

BY COL. CHAS. WHITTLESEY. 



At the Cincinnati meeting of the Ohio 
State Archaeological Society in September 
187T, a committee was appointed to report 
upon the genuineness of the Grave Creek 
Stone, Mr. Wharton, one of its members, 
having asserted in the most positive man- 
ner that he was present when it was 
found, and that there could have been 
no deception practiced on him. The gentle- 
men comprising the committee have a 
thorough knowledge of what pertains to home 
archaeology, They are the Rev. J. B. Mc- 
« — fe«ie, Hamilton, Ohio; A. E. A. Taylor, Pres- 
ident of Wooster University, and Prof. M. C. 
Read, of Ru d se fe College, Ohio. At the meet- 
ing of this society at Wooster, Ohio, in Sep- 
tember, 1878, Prof. Read made an exhaustive 
report, including much new correspondence, 
the conclusions of which are against the gen- 
uineness of the inscription. It was concurred 
in by President Taylor, and has been printed 
in the January number of the American An- 
tiquarian, Cleveland, Ohio. 

In February, 1878, I received from Mr. R. 
W. Mercer, of Cincinnati, a well informed 
dealer in Western relics, a letter which states 
that Mr. Boreman, who for the past sixteen 
years has been postmaster at Parkersburg, in 
West Virginia, had recently told Mr. Mercer 
that he knew the man who made that tablet, 
and put it in the mound, while the excavation 
was going on. President I. W. Andrews, of 
Marietta College, near Parkersburg, on being 
informed of the ab^ve statement, visited Mr. 
Boreman at his home. His report of the in- 
terview is that it was not very explicit. 



"Mr. Boreman, the Postmaster, knew the 
man who is supposed to have hoaxed Mr. 
Tomlinson, the owner of the mound. His 
name was David Gatewood, and lived near 
the mound at the time it was opened." 

■'Mr. B. is confident that some one told him 
that Gatewood admitted he cut the characters 
on the stone and threw it into the excavation 
while the men were away, but cannot recall 
the person who informed him." * * * 

'T saw another gentleman who had some 
knowledge of the stone, but seemed to doubt 
whether there was anthing more than suspic- 
ion to base the idea upon, and did not speak 
as he thought Gatewood admitted it." 

Hitherto the doubts which have been thrown 
over this inscription were based entirely upon 
general conclusions. The direct proofs were 
all in favor of its antiquity. At least half a 
dozen persons of credibility have stated over 
their signatures that they believe it to be what 
Mr. Tomlinson claimed for it in 1842. More 
than one of them was present when it was 
first produced. They do not precisely 
agree" in the details, but are as 
nearly in accord as is usual in 
such cases. But none of these witnesses 
had stated that they saw the stone imbedded 
in the undisturbed matrix of the mound. 
This main fact being wanting, there were so 
many improbabilities on the other side that 
Mr. Squier and Prof. Wilson were confident, 
thirty years since, that it is a fraud. The 
critical ability of Mr. Schoolcraft, who took 
the opposite ground, was not such as to give 
much weight to his opinion. 

Messrs. Jomard. Schwab, Goppert and 
Bing, in Europe, appear to have relied upon 
Mr. Schoolcraft without further investigation. 
A majority of the "Americanistes," at their 
meetingjin Nancy and at Luxembourg, regard- 
ed it as impossible that there should be any 
Semitic writings or inscriptions in America. 
Prof, Leon de Rosny denied before the Con- 



- 

GO TEE MAYA MANUSCRIPTS. 



gress at Nancy (vol. 2, p. 81) that there is any 
evidence of a knowledge of writing in Ancient 
America on the phonetic or alphabetic sys- 
tem, in which he agrees with Humboldt and 
Klaproth. They regard the Mexican picture 
writing as originally a close resemblance to 
the modern rebus. Rosny discussed the Maya 
manuscripts, for which he denied any resem- 
blance to either the cursive, abridged or de- 
motic writings, of Africa and Asia. He says: 

Of the Maya manuscripts there are three — 
1st, Codex of Dresden, written upon Agave 
tissue ; 2d, in the Bibliotheque-National, found 
by me in 1859, called "Codex of Perez," or 
Perezione; :3d, the one of the Abbe de Bras- 
seur de Bourberg, who found at Madrid the 
manuscripts of Diego de Landa, the first 
Bishop of Yucatan. This embraces a sort of 
Maya alphabet, an almanac and a poem, but 
the Abbe's decipherment rests on nothing. 

Herbert Bancroft and Mr. W. Balbouts 
take the same view. All attempts to read 
these manuscripts, in the opinion of M. Rosny, 
have failed. The only direc-t disclaimer of 
the Congress, as to the translation of Mr. 
Bing, will be found in a note on page 225, vol- 
ume 2, in these words : 

"The reader will find on page 130 two trans- 
lations of the Grave Creek inscription, not 
having any relation to each other, and en- 
tirely different from that of Monsieur Bing." 
The first is by Mr. M. Schwab, and the second 
by Mr. Oppert. Messrs. Castelneau, Jomard 
Schwab, Oppert and Prof. Turner, of New 
York, consider it to be Phonecian, and there- 
fore Semitic. 

Prof. Paul Gafferel, of Dijon, differs from 
them, and says (p. 130) very judiciously :' 'Few 
problems are more interesting to discuss, but 
before arriving at a conclusion more proofs 
and more solid arguments are necessary than 
we now have or probably ever shall have." 
Mr. Lucien Adams, remarking upon the pa- 
per of Hyde Clark, Vice President of the An- 
thropological Institute of London (Compe 
Rendu, vol. 1. p. 157), says: 
"The Congress of Americanistes has not alone 
the mission of illuminating the facts, on 
which we may erect theories with some de- 
gree of certainty ; it should also defer to the 
examination of American scholars, those 
hasty systems of which in our times there is 
found too easy an acceptance in the common 
and the polemic world. The session at 
Nancy, signalized among the linguists the 
theory of Aryan races in Peru, which began 
to be diffused in latin America and else- 
where. In the Compte Rendu for Luxem- 
bourg you will see a memoir of Mr. Henry, 
which does full justice to the chimera of an 
Indo-European language, through the dic- 
tionary, and of a poly-synthetic through 
grammar. The same congress had invited 
archaeologists, to examine very closely the 
pretended Semitic inscriptions, which come 
to us from time to time from a country 
where it appears the celebrated mystifier 
Barnum has a school. Col. Whittles- ey has 
responded to this appeal by a brochure which 
has the significant title of "Archaeological 
Frauds. " 

In August, 1878, I visited Moundville and 
the great mound, where several people are 
yet living who saw it opened in 1838. One of 



the horses which drew the omnibus from the 
depot to the hotel, was said to have been re- 
cently exhumed from the mound. He had 
fallen into the shaft, which is still in good 
condition. Being evidently alive, the old 
adit on the north side was cleaned out, and the 
animal rescued through it very little injured. 
I now give the information procured at 
Moundville. 

CONVERSATION WITH MR. P. B. CATLETT. 

Mr. Catlett appeared to be about seventy 
years old, his mind and physical constitution 
as good as usual with men of his age. He 
said: 

"I was in the adit the day the stone was 
found with hieroglyphics on it. One man 
came out with a wheelbarrow load of earth 
and dumped it on the pile. Then another 
man came out and dumped another barrow 
load in the same place. I was looking about 
the pile and was the first who saw the stone 
and took it in my hands. The upper vault 
had fallen in, and Mr. Tomlinson thought that 
it came from the upper vault, but I thought 
that it came from the lower one." 

"David Gatewood was a plasterer, and 
plastered the room which Mr. Tomlinson 
made at the center of the mound. He did 
not live here very long. I worked for Tom- 
linson in the adit and the room. I after 
wards kept the room in which the relics were 
placed. Many of them were lost. Mr. T. 
did not pay much attention to them. Most 
of them were carried away, and the roof fell 
in. A part of one of the skeletons is there 
yet. The shaft is still good, being walled 
with brick. The upper vault fell m after we 
reached the center of the mound." 

Mrs. Richard Paul, of Mound sville, is a 
daughter of David Gatewood. She states 
that she has heard her father speak about 
these relics, but she was then a small girl and 
remembers nothing which he said in particu- 
lar. He soon after moved away and died at 
Reedsville, Ohio. 

Mrs. Alston lives at Moundsville. She is a 
widow, and sister of Mrs. Paul. She states 
that her father died about fourteen (14) and 
her mother four (4) years since. Heard her 
mother talk abou ; the stone, but remembers 
nothing, as she was very young. 

It must be admitted that the proof is not 
conclusive against Gatewood, and amounts 
to little more than suspicion. I agree with 
Prof. Read that the characters on the stone, 
by whomsoever they were cut, are not alpha- 
betical or phonetic. If they have any mean- 
ing and are not a mere jumble of characters, 
they must be symbolic or picture writing. It 
is therefore of small consequence whether the 
stone is antique or modern, whether it is gen- 
uine or a fraud. 

In my remarks upon the translation by 
Monsieur Levy Bing, I quoted a rendering of it 
made by Mr.M. Schwab, who attended the con 
gress at Luxembourg, as a representative of 
the Philological Society of Paris. He is 
a profound scholar in languages, and 
brought to Luxembourg a treatise upon the 
Grave Creek Stone, where he first saw my 
criticism upon its genuineness. On seeing 
this he declined to read his paper but reques- 
ted the committee on publication, to insert 
it in their Compte-Rendu. This was not done 



PD 10.4 



OPINIONS OF THE AMERICAN 1STES. 



67 



and its contents which must be valuable and 
recondite have not yet transpired. 

At the sitting of September 12, 1877, he 
made the following remarks, for the transla- 
tion of which I am indebted to Mrs. C. C 
Baldwin, of this city: 

"As to myself truth obliges me to confess 
ignorance of what pertains to America. I am 
thoroughly Hebrew ; therefore it was of an in- 
scription given out to be Phonician, by those 
who discovered it, that I prepared to treat be- 
fore you. But only yesterday I had knowl- 
edge of a brochure by Colonel 'Whittlesey on 
"archaeological frauds'' in the United States, 
and I acknowledge tnat the reading of this 
document gives rise in my mind to the 
gravest doubts. 

On the testimony of an archaeologist of 
merit (Mr. Schoolcraft), who has not doubted 
what Col. Whittlesey call the "genuineness" 
of the Grave Creek inscription ; I undertook 
the decipherment of the stone eleven years 
since. Mr. Goppert has had the goodness to 
examine my efforts at a translation. I de- 
clare boldly that this illustrious linguist and 
paleographist, bestowed only a hasty exam- 
ination, and took no decisive position upon 
either -the authenticity or the interpretation 
of this stone. His high scientific responsibil- 
ity is in no wise pledged in this discussion 
based upon the testimony of Mr. Schoolcraft, 
and without prejudice, whether the text 
was the work of a forger. Each 
one to his task. I am informed within twenty- 
four hours that three eminent archaeologists, 
E. George Squier, Daniel Wilson and E. H. 
Davis, have returned a verdict absolutely 
negative, upon the authenticity of this stone. 
Under t^bese circumstances I present you my 
hasty epitome which will convince you that 
it was ingenious in the forger to make a Se- 
mitic inscription, but content myself with 
simply asking the publication of my memoir 
in the proceedings of this session. " 

After this very frank statement of Mr. 
Schwab, Mr. Lucien Adams, one of the lead- 
ing members of Congress, made the following 
remarks: 

"Mr. Schwab has demonstrated that true sci 
ence is not overcome, by either doubts or self- 
love. I say boldly that after the declarations 
he has made, the question of the Grave Creek 
Stone is settled in the old w T orld as well as in 
the new. I have, however, this duty, to de- 
claim all responsibility of the Congress at 
Nancy. In the brochure of which Mr. Schwab 
has spoken, Colonel W. implies that the mem- 
bers of that session, must have been convinced 
of the authenticity of this inscription as pre- 
sented by Mr. L. Bing. 

This eminent Americaniste will allow me to 
observe that the question of authenticity was i 
not raised at Nancy, and that there is a note i 
appended to the memoir of Mr. Bing by the I 
Committee of Publication, which explains, in 
a very courteous but explicit manner, the | 
opinion of the Congress. Since we are not I 
compromised from the other side of the At- 
lantic, I declare in the name of the committee 
of the first session, that the Americanistes at 
Nancy, did not receive the version of Mr. 
Bing the authenticity of the inscription, or the 
presence on American soil, before Columbus, 
of the Semitic element. " 



To the remark of Mr. Adams j especting the 
note of the committer of publication I should 
state that I find one at the foot of page 192, 
Tome Second proceedings at Nancy ; dis- 
claiming for the congress any sanction for a 
supposed Hebrew inscription, copied in the 
Compte-Rendu purporting to have teen 
taken from a mound somewhere in Licking 
county, Ohio. 

LUXEMBOURG MEETING, TOME 1— p. 1?0. 
From remarks by Major De HehvakI, of Austria. 

"We must admit the investigations into the 
origin- of American civilization, which have 
been during the two last sittings the princi- 
pal object of oar studies, do not furnish the 
critic with solid grounds by which it is possi- 
ble to distinguish clearly truth from error. 
The question of this origin is particularly 
troublesome, although I think it not useless 
at this moment, where we hope to reach cer- 
tain history, to endeavor to give an exact 
account of the results which we have 
obtained and of those we hope 
to obtain in the near future. This 
problem of origin, enveloped as it is in thick 
darkness, extends beyond the purposes of this 
Congress ; in its programme on the study of 
American civilization. The ante-Columbian 
history of America, to use an expression I 
proposed at yesterday's sitting, embraces two 
distinct epochs. The first, that which imme- 
diately preceded the discovery, and which is 
supported by reliable documents, more or less 
authentic; but documents that may be used 
on condition they are submitted to severe 
criticism. The other and anterior epoch as- 
cends even to the origin. It precedes the 
state of things of which we have a partial 
knowledge, which I will call historic. 

Must I insist on the consideration that such 
a civilization as Europeans found in America, 
necessarily required centuries for its develop- 
ment? If we are asked for the duration of 
this epoch answer frankly, that we know very 
imperfectly and really not at all. However 
that may be, there is no doubt that as to the 
certain period we are on an ocean of hypoth- 
eses, floating according to every caprice. 
Hypotheses? How they surged about at 
Nancy; they are surging now at Luxembourg ; 
and I apprehend they will continue to surge 
during the third session. 

Permit me to request this Congress to re- 
strain the growing studies relating to Ameri- 
ca, and confine them to questions where we 
can see clearly, or at least such as are amen- 
able to fair criticism. Especially let us be 
skeptical, very skeptical, in the theories given 
in the Memoirs just read. I do not undertake 
to criticise those papers, but I must say that 
for the most part they contain only hypo- 
theses with slight foundation?. I do not ab- 
solutely deny the value of hypotheses, but in 
a science as young as ours it is necessary 
above all things to have a base upon which 
can be erected something durable." 

Many copies of this stone, which for its 
diminutive size and the few characters upon 
it, has attained an undue notoriety, have been 
published during the past forty years. Most 
of them are carelessly made. The European 
discussions and transitions are based upon 
imperfect copies, all of which were repro- 
duced in our tract No. 33 for November, 1876. 



THE GRAVE CREEK STONE. 



I insert again the only correct copy made 
by Captain Eastman, United States Army, 
from the original in 1850, for ' ' Schoolcraft s 
Indian tribes." It is of the size of nature, a 
thin oval piece of sandstone; the back ot 
which is blank. . . 

If Professor Read and myselr are right in 
our conclusions, that the figures are neither 
of the Runic, Phonician, Canaamte, Hebrew 
Lybian, Celtic, or any other alphabet 
language, its importance has been greatly 
overrated. 



i 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2010 

* ^ PreservationTechnologies 

V a WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



